I've used it in 44, 357, 357 SIG, and for reduced loads in 22 Hornet. It works great in the 44 mag. I've only had two problems with it. The first was high extreme spreads with light bullet 357 loads. Not an optimum powder for that so I quit using it for that application. The second is the powder is so fine it doesn't work well in some measures. If the tolerences are loose then the individual spheres jam up the works.

Yes 125s are where I had the problems. Magnum primers seemed to help a little with my loads. I did find the crimp is critical. Some bulk bullets I tried had a very shallow cannelure and I had spreads of over 300 FPS with those. Also noticed Accurate Arms has changed their data for that combo several times. In one of the manuals, the first I think, they even said Not Recommended for #9 with 125s. I found it simpler to use 110 for the few 125s I load now.

Some bulk bullets I tried had a very shallow cannelure and I had spreads of over 300 FPS with those.

I had similar results trying #9 in .357 and .44 using bulk bullets. Massive extreme spread. I chalked it up to the empty space that #9 leaves in the case, even with max loads. I use a Lee seater/crimp die and usually set the roll crimp at 1/2 additional turn into the press. How much crimp did you use to get better results?

I couldn't get a good load with those bulk bullets and that powder. I ended up using Hornady bullets, which have a more pronounced cannelure, and a very heavy crimp. Also mag primers. Like cheygriz's load, it gave very high velocity. The extreme spread was still a bit high for me, around 100 FPS. I was worried about the pressures since it seemed like the primers were a bit flatter on the fast rounds. This is a very subjective thing and I might have been talking myself into seeing it. None the less, I switched powders.

Still use #9 for 44 and others and it is excellent. But when I run out I'll standardize on H110 to reduce inventory.

The differences in luck that we've had with #9 could be no more than a matter of different tolerances in different guns.

Like you, I've tried loads in my guns that work like gangbusters for a friend in his gun and gave lousy results in my guns.

I totally agree with trying to standardize on powder and primers. And I really like H-110. It was my standard for several years. In fact, that's the main reason that I tried working up magnum loads with standard primers in the first place. So far, it's worked well for me, and I don't have to stock any magnum primers except Rem 9 1/2 M large rifle magnum. (My .300 and .338 WinMags just won't cut it with standard primers.)

I think this is what makes handloading so interesting. Every gun, and every load, is an entity unto itself. I once had a load worked up for an HK-91 in .308 that would shoot 5 shots into 2 inches with the factory iron sights all day long. That same load in a scoped, heavy barrel Remington 700 wouldn't even stay on the target. Go figure!

__________________
If you think a mighty military force is expensive, wait 'til you see what a weak one costs.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.